Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:49:05 01/15/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2006 at 11:18:46, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 15, 2006 at 11:13:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 15, 2006 at 11:04:26, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2006 at 10:57:25, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2006 at 10:23:33, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 10:08:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 09:38:02, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 09:22:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 08:43:13, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 15, 2006 at 02:07:06, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Lacrosse's analysis showed above all that in the 87 positions he tested, that >>>>>>>>>>>Shredder 9 and Rybka scored 57% given 10 seconds, and Fruit and Toga and company >>>>>>>>>>>are much weaker with so little time, and thus much weaker in blitz. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Albert >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Just a little point, Albert. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What my little experience shows is not an argument for telling that engine A is >>>>>>>>>>better or worse than engine B at faster or slower time control. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What I precisely did is the following : >>>>>>>>>>let say : >>>>>>>>>>- engine A solves "x" positions in 180 seconds and >>>>>>>>>>- engine B solves "y" positions in 18o seconds. >>>>>>>>>>I recorded: >>>>>>>>>>- what percentage of "x" engine A had already solved after 10 seconds >>>>>>>>>>- what percentage of "y" engine B had already solved after 10 seconds >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So each engine is compared at 10 seconds with the number of positions that it >>>>>>>>>>will solve _itself_ at 180 seconds >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So when I record that Rybka has a 57% score and Fruit a 39%, this does _not_ say >>>>>>>>>>that Rybka is "stronger" or "weaker" than Fruit, and we could have a much weaker >>>>>>>>>>1800 elo engine getting a 80% (or a 15%) score in the same test. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What the little test tends to show is just that rybka has already shown 57% of >>>>>>>>>>its own analysis capacity at 10 seconds whereas Fruit has a larger margin of >>>>>>>>>>improvement (compared with itself) when given a larger time control. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Actually, it doesn't even show what you suggest, that Rybka has already shown >>>>>>>>>57% of it's capacity in 10 seconds, and as a consequence I'm afraid your >>>>>>>>>conclusions are incorrect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The positions you tested with have definite solutions I presume, thus once that >>>>>>>>>solution is reached there is no room for improvement. How can you claim that >>>>>>>>>Rybka cannot improve its analysis when the positions you gave it cannot be >>>>>>>>>improved upon after the solutions are found? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Please read again: "larger margin". Does it mean "cannot improve"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It can't have a 'larger' margin of improvement if it is being compared to >>>>>>>something with no possible margin. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is another claim but of course you cant say anything at all if the problems >>>>>>are too easy to solve. >>>>> >>>>>It makes no difference whatsoever. >>>>> >>>>>>- Let me repeat what i wrote to Marc. His little >>>>>>experiment and discussion proves that he has done something valuable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ok, if the value of the experiment is in the debates that it created, then fine. >>>>>But the numbers and results have no value whatsoever if one wants to draw any >>>>>conclusions from them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>No way. You cant say that. This WHATSOEVER is wrong and destructive towards >>>>Marc. >>> >>>Not only can I say it, I even showed why. What does Marc have to do with this? >>>I'm talking about the data and the inferences drawn. >>> >>Ok, if you think that it wouldnt bother him if he had made experiments without >>any value whatsoever - then you can make such conclusions. I agree. > >It doesn't matter if it bothers him. It isn't about him. If the data or >conclusions are bogus then that is what matters, and not whether his ego would >be wounded by revealing this. Especially since some people clearly did draw >conclusions from it. > > Albert Again, IMO his experiment IS valuable also from its results. It's a sound experiment. What could be taken 1 to 1 into other areas is open. Here you might have a point. But you are trying to make a wrong conclusion. I do also differ between his own concern and his class. What I'm pointing out is that he didnt do something WRONG. But you might be correct, that Marc didnt find a new WM test. :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.